DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Cofran v. Swanman, 29 N.W.2d 448.

67 citing documents.

  • A minor child by his mother and natural guardian, Chelsea Rose, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    so the direction of [her] pull with the baby is axial and is in alignment with the spine.” Despite this conflicting expert testimony regarding what the birth video shows, Rose argues that the birth video “conclusively show[s]” Dr. Kohls applying lateral traction, in violation of the standard of care
  • O'NEIL v. Wells Concrete Products Co. 477 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • O'NEIL v. Wells Concrete Products Co. 477 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    Cofran v. Swanman, 225 Minn. 40, 42
  • Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc. 463 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1990
  • Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc. 463 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1990
    The videotapes, Ziegler urges, “demonstrably prove[] that Schweich is capable of walking, talking, driving, and socializing with strangers for long periods of time.” Ziegler relies on Cofran v. Swanman, 225 Minn. 40 , claiming that facts proven by demonstration, as in the videotape, control over contrary witness testimony.
  • Johnson v. Southern Minnesota MacHinery Sales, Inc. 442 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Johnson v. Southern Minnesota MacHinery Sales, Inc. 442 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    Edgewater Motels, (quoting Cofran v. Swanman, 225 Minn. 40, 42 , ).
  • United State Fire Insurance Co. v. Ammala 334 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 1983
  • United State Fire Insurance Co. v. Ammala 334 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 1983
    that, “taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and giving the adverse party the benefit of every influence reasonably deductible therefrom, the evidence as a whole manifestly and so overwhelmingly preponderates to the contrary as to be practically conclusive against the verdict.” Edgewater Motels, -15 (Minn.1979) (quoting Cofran v. Swanman, 225 Minn. 40, 42 , ).
  • Alden Wells Veterinarian Clinics, Inc. v. Wood 324 N.W.2d 181 Minn. 1982
  • Alden Wells Veterinarian Clinics, Inc. v. Wood 324 N.W.2d 181 Minn. 1982
    The applicable standard in reviewing a trial court’s decision on such a motion was set forth in Edgewater Motels, d at 14 (quoting Cofran v. Swanman, 225 Minn. 40, 42 , ): A motion for judgment non obstante accepts the view of the evidence most favorable to the verdict and admits every inference reasonably to be drawn from such evidence, as well as the credibility of the testimony for the adverse party, and if application of this rule, in the light of t
  • Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe 291 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 1980
  • Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe 291 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 1980
    Assuming this testimony is true, as this court must do, see, Cofran v. Swanman, 225 Minn. 40 , 5 we believe a jury could properly find that Mrs. Togstad sought and received legal advice from Miller under circumstances which made it reasonably foreseeable to Miller that Mrs. Togstad would be injured if the advice were negligently given.
  • Edgewater Motels, Inc. v. Gatzke 277 N.W.2d 11 Minn. 1979
  • Edgewater Motels, Inc. v. Gatzke 277 N.W.2d 11 Minn. 1979
    The applicable standard was articulated by this court in Cofran v. Swanman, 225 Minn. 40, 42 , as follows: “A motion for judgment non obstante accepts the view of the evidence most favorable to the verdict and admits every inference reasonably to be drawn from such evidence, as well as the credibility of the testimony for the adverse party, and if the application of this rule, i
  • Filas v. Daher 218 N.W.2d 467 Minn. 1974
  • Filas v. Daher 218 N.W.2d 467 Minn. 1974
    See, Cofran v. Swanman, 225 Minn. 40
  • Gerster v. Special Administrator for the Estate of Wedin 199 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 1972
  • Gerster v. Special Administrator for the Estate of Wedin 199 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 1972
    Ford v. Stevens, 280 Minn. 16 , Cofran v. Swanman, 225 Minn. 40 , Willmar Gas Co. Inc. v. Duininck, 236 Minn. 499
  • Keefer v. Al Johnson Construction Co. 193 N.W.2d 305 Minn. 1971
  • Keefer v. Al Johnson Construction Co. 193 N.W.2d 305 Minn. 1971
    Bank v. Fox, 191 Minn. 318 , Cofran v. Swanman, 225 Minn. 40
  • Fisher v. Edberg 176 N.W.2d 897 Minn. 1970
  • Followed Fisher v. Edberg 176 N.W.2d 897 Minn. 1970
    In Ford v. Stevens, 280 Minn. 16, 20 , 157 N. W. (2d) 510, 513 , we stated: “* * * The rule which we follow is expressed in Cofran v. Swanman, 225 Minn. 40, 42 , 29 N. W. (2d) 448, 450 , where we said: * * ❖ * ❖ “ * * if * * * Up0n a search of the entire record, after taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and giving the adverse party the benefit of every inference reason *110 ably deductible therefrom, the evidence as a whole manifestly and so ov
  • Cormican v. Parsons 163 N.W.2d 41 Minn. 1968
  • Cormican v. Parsons 163 N.W.2d 41 Minn. 1968
    Cofran v. Swanman, 225 Minn. 40 , 29 N. W. (2d) 448 ; Swanson v. Minneapolis St.
  • Ford v. Stevens 157 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 1968
  • Followed Ford v. Stevens 157 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 1968
    The rule which we follow is expressed in Cofran v. Swanman, 225 Minn. 40, 42 , 29 N. W. (2d) 448, 450 , where we said: “A motion for judgment non obstante accepts the view of the evidence most favorable to the verdict and admits every inference reasonably to be drawn from such evidence, as well as the credibility of the testimony for the adverse party, and if the application of this rule
  • Coenen v. Buckman Building Corporation 153 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1967
  • Coenen v. Buckman Building Corporation 153 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1967
    See, Krueger v. Knutson, 261 Minn. 144 , 111 N. W. (2d) 526 ; Austin v. Rosecke, 240 Minn. 321 , 61 N. W. (2d) 240 ; Goldfine v. Johnson, 208 Minn. 449 , ; Cofran v. Swanman, 225 Minn. 40 , 29 N. W. (2d) 448 ; Koch v. Lidberg, 219 Minn. 199 , 17 N. W. (2d) 308 .
  • Rausch v. Julius B. Nelson and Sons, Inc. 149 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1967
  • Rausch v. Julius B. Nelson and Sons, Inc. 149 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1967
    Co. 42 Minn. 5 , ; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Chamberlain, 288 U. S. 333 , 53 S. Ct. 391 , 77 L. ed. 819.” Mr. Justice Matson, speaking for this court in Cofran v. Swanman, 225 Minn. 40, 42 , 29 N. W. (2d) 448, 450 , said: “A motion for judgment non obstante accepts the view of the evidence most favorable to the verdict and admits every inference reasonably to be drawn from such evidence, as well as the credibility of the testimony for the adverse party, and if the application of this rule, in the l
  • Nelson v. Holand 139 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1965
  • Distinguished Nelson v. Holand 139 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1965
    Reiter v. Porter, 216 Minn. 479 , 13 N. W. (2d) 372 , and Cofran v. Swanman, 225 Minn. 40 , 29 N. W. (2d) 448 , cited by appellant, are distinguishable on the facts.
  • Bigo v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway Co. 115 N.W.2d 230 Minn. 1962
  • Bigo v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway Co. 115 N.W.2d 230 Minn. 1962
    Fulsom v. Egner, 248 Minn. 156 , 79 N. W. (2d) 25 ; Cofran v. Swanman, 225 Minn. 40 , 29 N. W. (2d) 448 ; see, Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 50.02.
  • Rosin v. International Harvester Co. 115 N.W.2d 50 Minn. 1962
  • Rosin v. International Harvester Co. 115 N.W.2d 50 Minn. 1962
    2 Fulsom v. Egner, 248 Minn. 156 , 79 N. W. (2d) 25 ; Cofran v. Swanman, 225 Minn. 40 , 29 N. W. (2d) 448 ; Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 50.02.
  • Kmetz v. Johnson 113 N.W.2d 96 Minn. 1962
  • Kmetz v. Johnson 113 N.W.2d 96 Minn. 1962
    Reiter v. Porter, 216 Minn. 479 , 13 N. W. (2d) 372 ; Cofran v. Swanman, 225 Minn. 40 , 29 N. W. (2d) 448 .
  • Krueger v. Knutson 111 N.W.2d 526 Minn. 1961
  • Krueger v. Knutson 111 N.W.2d 526 Minn. 1961
    In Cofran v. Swanman, 225 Minn. 40, 42 , 29 N. W. (2d) 448, 450 , this court made the following statements, speaking through Mr. Justice Matson: “A motion for judgment non obstante accepts the view of the evidence most favorable to the verdict and admits every inference reasonably to be drawn from such evidence, as well as the credibility of the testim
  • Gothe v. Murray 109 N.W.2d 350 Minn. 1961
  • Gothe v. Murray 109 N.W.2d 350 Minn. 1961
    See, also, Cofran v. Swanman, 225 Minn. 40 , 29 N. W. (2d) 448 ; Sanders v. Gilbertson, 224 Minn. 546 , 29 N. W. (2d) 357 .
  • Jensen v. Linner 108 N.W.2d 705 Minn. 1961
  • Jensen v. Linner 108 N.W.2d 705 Minn. 1961
    1 See, Sundeen v. Barthel, 241 Minn. 398 , 63 N. W. (2d) 267 ; Cofran v. Swanman, 225 Minn. 40 , 29 N. W. (2d) 448 ; Sanders v. Gilbertson, 224 *25 Minn. 546, 29 N. W. (2d) 357 ; Norling v. Stempf, 208 Minn. 143 , .
  • Campbell v. Siever 91 N.W.2d 474 Minn. 1958
  • Campbell v. Siever 91 N.W.2d 474 Minn. 1958
    Sorlie v. Thomas, 235 Minn. 509 , 51 N. W. (2d) 592 ; Cofran v. Swanman, 225 Minn. 40 , 29 N. W. (2d) 448 .
  • Coble v. Lacey 90 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 1958
  • Coble v. Lacey 90 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 1958
    Schrader v. Kriesel, 232 Minn. 238 , 45 N. W. (2d) 395 ; Cofran v. Swanman, 225 Minn. 40 , 29 N. W. (2d) 448 .
  • Rudd v. Lyceum Dramatic Productions, Inc. 85 N.W.2d 61 Minn. 1957